Revenue from Linux servers continues to show incredible growth, according to a report by IDC. IDC's Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker reported that Linux servers saw their ninth consecutive quarter of double digit growth, with revenue reported up 42.6% from last year. Unit shipments were also up 31.7%. In comparison, Windows server revenue grew 13.3%, with unit shipments up 19.1% from last year. Linux server revenue accounted for 9.2% of overall quarterly server revenue.

The third quarter of this year also was the first time Linux servers surpassed the US$1 billion dollar mark in revenue. The companies leading the way in Linux server revenue sales were HP, with 26.9% marketshare, followed by IBM, with 20.5%, and then Dell, with 17.4% marketshare.

BRIAN'S OPINION
Say what you want about Microsoft dominating marketshare, but with the continued double-digit growth that has been shown by Linux servers it won't take long before Microsoft starts feeling some pain. 42.6% growth is really some incredible growth. Whether it's sustainable is another question, but there's no doubt that Linux is showing itself to be a viable competitor to the Microsoft server family.

IBM has done a good job with its Linux marketing. I must admit that I don't go to sleep at night looking at vendor marketshare for Linux server revenues, so I made the assumption that IBM would have been the leader when it came to Linux server revenue sales. I was really surprised to learn it was HP with 26.9%. I think if IBM remains aggressive with its Linux marketing it may soon take the lead from HP.

USER COMMENTS 27 comment(s)

How do we comment without getting deleted?(11:37am EST Fri Nov 26 2004)Brian Osborne: “I must admit that I don't go to sleep at night looking at vendor marketshare for Linux server revenues, so I made the assumption that IBM would have been the leader when it came to Linux server revenue sales.”Boy, you MS astroturfers are really nuts. Imagine if real competition was allowed in the desktop market and a price war woould start up and MS had to lower their price a few dollars. You freaks would go nuts.This is a no win situation. People shouldn't bother posting on this story. There is no way to do it without getting deleted. The story will be filled with comments from the other geek writers and editors. – by lol

Re:Steven(12:42pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)I remember My good buddy Steven 3 years ago said that Linux would be dead by now. When they said back in 2000 that Linux had doubled in sales Stevens response was that twice nothing is still nothing.

Linux has had a slow growth over the last 5 years and I for one see this as a good thing. It has weathered the storms of Microsoft bashing it and putting out false reports. It survived “WEHAVETHEWAYOUT.COM”, SCO and is still around.

Some people look at Linux as a junk bond that needs to make a lot of money in the short term. I see Linux as a utility that will pay off in the long run.

Linux does not need to wipe Windows off the map in one blow. It need to take it down a brick at a time.

Microsoft does not fear what Linux can do to it today or the next 2 years. They fear what it will do 10 years down the timeline.

– by Rax

Servers used to run mainly Unix.(12:44pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)Windows server was never dominant in the servers market. They all used to run on unix. All the companies mentioned just liked linux because they basically don't have to pay for anything. Do they use the profit to hire people to make the next Linux version? not really. So you can't really say Linux revenue. No one get money from building Linux. – by WD

Re:WD(12:50pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)“No one get money from building Linux”

What ?? are you a moron?RedHat, IBM, HP, and DELL are all making money building Linux and Linux systems. Alot of the new ERP/SAP systems are using Linux.

It seems that you are the only one not making money from Linux.

Are you jealous?

LOL

– by Rax

Have to ask(1:06pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)Is all this growth attributed to “unix to linux” conversion? or are there plenty of MS/MAC to Linux server conversions going on? Whose taking whose market share? I mean after all MS's server revenue is up 13%, and all Windows Server shipments are also up 20% over last years numbers, which is a hell of a lot of growth considering their market share right?

There is no doubt that Linux is on the rise, but it seems that its taking more market share away from other “underdog” implementations than from MS. Is that a good thing or bad? Doesn't that create more “enemies” of linux in the business world to contend with so to speak? – by Samueul

by lol(1:29pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)Deleted?

I have never been deleted…… – by CD

WD(1:31pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)“So you can't really say Linux revenue. No one get money from building Linux.”

C'mon WD, you can do better than that nonsense.

Growth—-a VERY important indicator, market share by itself is secondary to this. – by VD

In a sense, many people who contributed didnt get anything.(2:13pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)I may have exsaturated (dont know how to spell it hahahaah) a bit here. But in a sense, many many contributor to Linux didnt' get any money for developing the Linux Operating system. Big companys are using linux to make money on the hardware they sell. Well i think that there should be a cost and return in a business relationship. The cost for the big company on linux is almost 0. So saying that you earn money from 0 cost just doesn't make any sense to me. From the developers side. Using so many hours on a product and getting 0 in return is also silly. – by WD

Re: Have to ask(2:41pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)“Is all this growth attributed to “unix to linux” conversion?”

Oh disgusting!, someone picked up that three year old MS PR line.

Put it down! You're grossing everyone out. Get with the times daddy-o, the hip MS FUDsters are all using the newfangled IP lawsuit stuff these days.

– by XploitMan N VirusBoy

RE: (3:36pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)It's a legitimate question.

Oh, by the way just to clear the air, I run a suse 9.1 box at home with mySQL, Apache, and phpNuke for a personal family orientated web portal, so I am not anybody's fanboy, astroturfer, or FUDster.

If MS's server marketshare and sales is continuing to grow and so is Linux's, then who's market share is shrinking? I would think it's Unix etc…?

For once put aside your zealotry and try to look at the picture objectively…. – by Samueul

RE: Samuel(3:58pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)The figures provided do not indicate any change in the market share, simply more revenue. Some of that is from unit shipment, but I suspect most of that is from support. – by 10101100

Applications(5:26pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)PHP is a nice scripting language, you can do a lot with. But it doesn't compare with ASP.NET which is based on a real platform. Also, what does Linux have for application serving?? You have to go J2EE (of which I am an advocate) but why would I now purchase a really expensive app server that runs on my IBM Linux box when I can run Win2K3 which comes with COM+ and .NET right out of the box?? Not to mention that most server products authenticate against Active Directory.

MySQL is a nice toy database for running family sites and game clans sites, but please, let's not compare running this with SQLServer. As a system's integrator, I would not trust an enterprise running on anything less than SQLServer or Oracle. I mean seriously, you couldn't even write correlated subqueries in MySQL until 2 releases ago!!

Apache has the lion's share of the market – by Systems Integrator

Applications cont'd(5:30pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)but you'll be stuck running PHP on it, which like I said, is far less powerful for writing enterprise business applications than a .NET-based solution.

What I do love about Linus, php, Java etc is that you can do an incredible amount of work for practically zero capital. Good for home and small office, not so good for enterprise solutions. – by Systems Integrator

Re: Systems Integrator(6:20pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)“MySQL is a nice toy database for running family sites and game clans sites, but please, let's not compare running this with SQLServer. As a system's integrator, I would not trust an enterprise running on anything less than SQLServer or Oracle. I mean seriously, you couldn't even write correlated subqueries in MySQL until 2 releases ago!!”Practically all of Yahoo! (including Yahoo! Financial) and Google runs on MySQL. Other customers including MP3.com, Motorola, NASA, Silicon Graphics, and Texas Instruments use the MySQL server in mission-critical applications.

I should put lie this with all the other lies I have collected from Windows FUD boy.– by

Re: In a sense, many people who contributed didnt get anything(6:28pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)I think you're missing the point of the OSS model. As software evolves common technologies become the common property of all who wish to develop with them. The money in linux and OSS comes from support and extending the capability of already written software to users who need it. The fact is that a large amount of software has been written that is very generic. The opportunities for making money may be leveraged in several ways. Extending functionality for specific customer needs, providing support, and providing a powerful, affordable software framework for various hardware platforms. And the beauty of it is that when everybody works together technology advances at a much faster pace. Just imagine if every scientific breakthrough had been patented. Scientists had to pay to understand the fundamentals of physics, chemistry et al. If that was the case we'd be in the stone ages so to speak. Don't Underestimate the power of cooperative systems. We can all benefit from OSS as developers and users. Don't get me wrong closed source has it's place as well. But to say that nobodies making money from open source is ridiculous. Red Hat, IBM, and Novell's business models discredit any statements to the contrary. Don't resist change, understand and embrace it. I don't mean to offend anyone and I appreciate any comments that illuminate the issue. But please take some time to examine how succesful OSS has been and why. It's for real and isn't going Away. As well in regards System Integrators comments can you not run Tomcat on Apache giving you a full Java Application framework upon which to build Applications. I believe it's all OS therefore providing a solid framework that is comprable to .NET. As well there is Mono, which may be able to provide the same framework as on Windows. I'm a little concerned over any use of MS tech on other systems due to Microsofts track record with Intelectual Property. I don't presume to be anything but a novice so please let me know if there's any drawbacks to this sort of applicaion server infrastructure. – by Greg

Practically all of Yahoo's database is running MySQL. It is easier to ask what of Yahoo's operations is not running MySQL. – by

Re: Systems Integrator(7:00pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)I think the point he was trying to make is that MySQL doesn't support some very important features that are present in an enterprise grad database. While MySQL does do somethings very well, it doesn't support some key features that allow for top shelf stability. As far as I know most of the shortcomings can be worked aroud by well thought out frontend scripting and adequate distribution and redundancy. Features such as foreign keys, triggers and data integrity checks are not supported in MySQL. Yahoo obviously has some good programmers that are able to work aroud these limitations it does not mean that MySQL is on par with databases such as Oracle, MSSQL, PostgreSQL and Firebird in enterprise features. – by Greg

Re: Greg(7:25pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)I agree with you that MySQL has limitations compared to Oracle and SQL Servers but it has proven itself in many large mission critical operations such as Yahoo! and Google. MySQL is definitely not a toy database as Systems Integrator suggests. – by

MySQL as Toy(10:08pm EST Fri Nov 26 2004)Ok ok. So maybe “toy” wasn't the correct word. I guess “clunky” might be better. When MySQL lets you write views, triggers, stored procedures etc, I will be all for it. It's one thing to read that Yahoo Financials runs their entire database on MySQL, but you have to ask why type of work is it allowing them to do? By writing more code in the front-end (i.e, inline SQL etc), you're exposing much of the database schema in the presentation layer – this is a fundamentally flawed approach both from a security, flexibility, and scalability standpoint.

I'm a huge fan of free (or nearly free) tools such as MySQL, but to get back to the topic at hand…you also need to find the right people to do the job. Personally, I'd rather have an Oracle or SQLServer DBA be responsible for admininistrating my enterprise datawarehouse. MySQL still has a long way to go, but no doubt it will become a contender in a few more years. – by Systems Integrator

Clunky(12:17am EST Sat Nov 27 2004)I understand the entire arguement about MySQL, honestly I like it very much and I believe it is good enough to get the job done. But lets be honest, what has the largest percentage of databases, simple clan/guild sites, tutorial sites, many top-end professional money making sites, etc… What a lazy corporation might need might not be needed by the masses. – by caithgeek

Uh, Hello! New server deployment…(12:32am EST Sat Nov 27 2004)It seems that a whole bunch of comments above are related to REPLACING Windows installations with Linux. What the replacement folks are missing is that people like me (working for a Fortune 500 company) are ordering servers from HP, IBM, etc. not to replace a Windows box but to enter into realms Microsoft won't allow us to: native J2EE connectivity to data sources, kernel tuning, REAL raw disk IO, etc.

That's why Linux is gaining it's fair share – it does many things better without a lock on the technology behind it. Developing a new app/infrustructure is so much easier (even outside of the performance gains) with Linux that Microsoft barely enters into the consideration picture. – by DAT

ok so why can't you install an J2EE app server on Windows?? You can – there's your J2EE connectivity. On the other hand, why would you?? It comes with .NET.

“kernel tuning” – I'd rather tune services than the O/S kernel! Good luck with that one, you must have very specialized needs that are outside the realm of most fortune 500 companies.

I agree with you that Linux doesn't have a “lock” on the technology behind it, but then seriously, why should an applications developer be concerned with how the O/S kernel ticks and tocks? These details are abstracted most of the time.

Ask yourself this though, I can run a complete J2EE-based environment with PHP, MySQL etc on Windows but I can't run .NET on Linux. Who's got the lock on scalability and flexibility now??

The truth is that most organizations have a mix of operating systems, databases, applications etc. That's where guys like me come in, figure out ways to integrate systems within an enterprise, it comes down to patterns within an org and standard ways to make those patterns uniform.– by Systems Integrator

If I can write a stored procedure instead of 3 C programs or some hard-coded set of insert/update statements to get the job done, I'll do it! And it will be faster, and easier to maintain than the hoops you'd have to go thru to do the same with a MySQL solution. You get what you pay for. Like I said before, talk to me in a few years when MySQL is still free and has all the features of Oracle, SQLServer, Sybase etc etc. – by Systems Integrator

re: by(8:01pm EST Sat Nov 27 2004)I'm well aware of the mono project, but here's a direct quote from the site link posted:

“Mono includes a compiler for the C# language, an ECMA-compatible runtime engine (the Common Language Runtime, or CLR),and class libraries”

Just because you can run a C# assembly on Linux, doesn't mean you're running .NET.

A huge part of the .NET framework is the application server (or object request broker formerly called COM+) included in Win2k3 and with the .NET framework add-on for WinXP, 2000. The mono-project doesn't begin to touch this.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am a huge advocate of J2EE and Java in general and I don't really get into the politics of who's rigging polls etc. I'd rather focus on the product and what I can use to get a job done. I've used both technologies and what it comes right down to is that Microsoft actually has a really solid contender to J2EE. In fact, in some ways it's a lot easier to be more productive with .NET because of the extensive set of tools and O/S level services that M$ provides with Win2k3.

Gimme Java, gimme C#, I don't care. You can't always slam M$ for the sake of doing it! Win2K3 may, at least for a short while, stall some of the progress that Linux is making.

– by Systems Integrator

I thought(9:17pm EST Sat Nov 27 2004)Linux was free? At least that's what I always hear. – by Tron

slam M$(4:34am EST Mon Nov 29 2004)My experience – people drawn in M$ stuff can never step down and admit Linux and Java are much better technologies.I can't help slaming M$. Look at its so called firewall and compare it to iptables. Developing web app on XP pro is also a pain in the butt. The bundled IIS is unstable, and I think developers are tired of rebooting their machines just to release some DLL. Not to mention M$ stuff is constantly troubled by virus and attacks.Yes, .Net comes with a bunch of stuff that can be handy. A friend of mine has been working on M$ stuff for a while. From VC to C#. His complaint was it's too much effort to modify / extend these components when they're not enough. He spent 6 months studying java web development, and he realized Java is much more advanced. But that's not the topic here…With more and more products supporting and performs better on Linux, I think the question here is how fast it grows. Personally, I don't think people are switching to Linux just because it's free. – by KF